The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-02-19
BY REV. |. NJ. ATWOOD. D. D.
Canton, N, Y.

A WRITER ingthe Sunday Herald con-
troverts DIR. Brookes Herfords statement,
that in moral questions the cline of least
resistance" is not followed-often the op-
posite line. The veterinarians that this
law of physics. holds in moral concerns
that the line Of least resistance for Garri-
son "lay straight through the dense block
of bowling mob, md that apostles and
martyrs generally have done what they
preferred to do. This is another instance
of fallacy arising from using the same
word in two senses. It is clear to every
one, that in one sense the martyr who
goes to the stake does "what he prefers
to do;" it is just as clear that in another
and distinct sense, he does what he pre-
fers not to do. He prefers not to be
burned alive; but he prefers even that to
perjury.
1t is nice question certainly, wheth-
Phillips Brooks, preaching the gospel In
good English, without slang or semi-pro-
fame denunciation, will do more good to
the common people than Sam Jones,
preaching the gospel regardless of the
canons of correct speech, with the manner
OF an auctloneer, and with running fire of
coarse invective and sallies Of border wit.
Who can decide it? Perhaps cultivated
taste may err in identifying coarse Ian
guage with low aim. What things does
the irreverent revivalist approve = good
things or bad things? What does he con-
demn? 1t was eaid OF certain rough
but sincere and great-hearted map, that
there was more pity in his oaths than in
certain other mans prayers. Men must
be judged not alone by what they say
but by what they say it for.
DR. George p. Fisher, of Yale. does
not quite agree with DR.. Withrow, that the
fate of the "dead heathen" is no concern
OF Christians; but he does say, that the
inquiry, "what is to befall those whom
the message Of revealed religion does not
reach?' is relatively Insignificant" He
means relatively to "she great doctrines
respecting the divine government and the
method of salvation, on which we (Con-
gregationalists) are substantially at one."
We fear DR.. Fisher has never calculated
the Importance Of this question. Would
he be willing to say, that the fate, the
eternal fate, Of all the persons in the
United States is relatively insignifi-
can't in comparison to ''she great doc
trines," whatever they are, of Congrega-
| tionalism?
Yet eli lie persons ID the Ty,,;fas
States are but a handful to the swarms
OF heathen "whom the message of reveal
ed religion does not reach" If Prof.
Fisher believes, as we presume he does,
that the future of these millions will not
be determined by the failure of Chris
tianlty to reach them in this world, then
it is relatively insignificant question to
ham. But on the other hypothesis it is
only less significant than the question OF
the destiny of all mankind. When a
man can minimize the subject as DIR.
E. does, we take it as prinsa-facie proof
that he holds to future probation for the
heather.
1t Is to be expected that persons who
have had no special mental training, and
whose theological education has been de-
rived wholly at second hand, will betray
crudity when they come to speak-ss not
few OF them are forward to do-on the
subject of religion. But we have a right
to expect different and better things of
persons trained to the accurate express
sion OF mature opinions, or of men who,
by assuming the place of public teachers
IN the pulpit, advertise themselves as 80
trained. OF course, even preacher must
be crude in some things; is it too much
to ask of him that he keep his crudities
to himself?
If Messrs. Huxley and Spencer, and
those of like precious faith, avow them
selves agnostic respecting the great funda-
mentals OF religion, they should not take
it amiss if theologians profess agnosti-
cism respecting the foundations of their
scientific creed. If it is admissible for
good logician to say that the being of
God, the immortality of man, the SUPER
natural origin of Christianity, are n.y.
potheses, not sufficiently probable to his
mind to warrant his believing anything
about them, it must be equally admissi-
BILE for good logicians to say, that the ev-
olution of life from the now living, and of
man from "a common stock of pr;mates,"
are hypothesis, the probability for which
is not strong enough to warrant pru-
dent man in knowing anything about
them.
Yet Mr.. Huxley and Mr.. Spencer, and
a long list of disciples have been assum-
ing and often saying, that it is simple
honesty and intellectual sobriety in them
to profess that they know nothing-be-
cause IN the nature of the case nothing is
to be known-of the propositions affirmed
by religion; but that it is evidence OF q
narrow and perverse mind for philoso-
pher or theologian to hesitate to accept
scientific hypotheses, especially after
they have been explicated and elaborated
and endorsed" by high authority. But
a rule which will not work for one kind